Bret Weinstein

So the point is, let me try by analogy. Okay. Darwinists will tell you that evolution cannot look forward. It can only look backward. And there's a way in which that's just simply true. On the other hand, a Darwinist will also tell you that you are a product of evolution and you can look forward, right?

So the point is, let me try by analogy. Okay. Darwinists will tell you that evolution cannot look forward. It can only look backward. And there's a way in which that's just simply true. On the other hand, a Darwinist will also tell you that you are a product of evolution and you can look forward, right?

So if evolution can't look forward but it can build a creature that can, then can evolution look forward? I think it effectively can. So my point is that random mutation mechanism is in a race to produce new forms that are better adapted to the world than their ancestors. What if it can bias the game? It can enhance its own ability to search, right?

So if evolution can't look forward but it can build a creature that can, then can evolution look forward? I think it effectively can. So my point is that random mutation mechanism is in a race to produce new forms that are better adapted to the world than their ancestors. What if it can bias the game? It can enhance its own ability to search, right?

So if evolution can't look forward but it can build a creature that can, then can evolution look forward? I think it effectively can. So my point is that random mutation mechanism is in a race to produce new forms that are better adapted to the world than their ancestors. What if it can bias the game? It can enhance its own ability to search, right?

If you lose your keys, you don't search randomly, right? You go through a systematic process of search, and that systematic process of search results in you finding your keys sooner than you would otherwise. So we should expect evolution to find every trick it can access to to increase the rate at which it discovers forms that would be useful in the habitat in question. And this is simply that.

If you lose your keys, you don't search randomly, right? You go through a systematic process of search, and that systematic process of search results in you finding your keys sooner than you would otherwise. So we should expect evolution to find every trick it can access to to increase the rate at which it discovers forms that would be useful in the habitat in question. And this is simply that.

If you lose your keys, you don't search randomly, right? You go through a systematic process of search, and that systematic process of search results in you finding your keys sooner than you would otherwise. So we should expect evolution to find every trick it can access to to increase the rate at which it discovers forms that would be useful in the habitat in question. And this is simply that.

I'm not really saying anything that extraordinary. If I say, do you know that computers, all they do is binary? Well, that's true. But if you then imagine that that means that the people who program computers do it in binary... Well, there was a time when that was true, but it's not true anymore. It's not how you do it.

I'm not really saying anything that extraordinary. If I say, do you know that computers, all they do is binary? Well, that's true. But if you then imagine that that means that the people who program computers do it in binary... Well, there was a time when that was true, but it's not true anymore. It's not how you do it.

I'm not really saying anything that extraordinary. If I say, do you know that computers, all they do is binary? Well, that's true. But if you then imagine that that means that the people who program computers do it in binary... Well, there was a time when that was true, but it's not true anymore. It's not how you do it.

There's a much more efficient way to program a computer, and it involves a programming language, which a computer itself can't understand. But you can build a computer that can either interpret the language in real time, or you can build a computer that can accept the code as it's spit out by a compiler. These are mechanisms to radically increase the effectiveness of a programmer.

There's a much more efficient way to program a computer, and it involves a programming language, which a computer itself can't understand. But you can build a computer that can either interpret the language in real time, or you can build a computer that can accept the code as it's spit out by a compiler. These are mechanisms to radically increase the effectiveness of a programmer.

There's a much more efficient way to program a computer, and it involves a programming language, which a computer itself can't understand. But you can build a computer that can either interpret the language in real time, or you can build a computer that can accept the code as it's spit out by a compiler. These are mechanisms to radically increase the effectiveness of a programmer.

But it all comes out binary anyway in the end. That's really what I'm arguing is that there's the initial layer of Darwinian stuff, the random mutation layer that it looks like what we teach people. There's another layer which we're not well familiar with.

But it all comes out binary anyway in the end. That's really what I'm arguing is that there's the initial layer of Darwinian stuff, the random mutation layer that it looks like what we teach people. There's another layer which we're not well familiar with.

But it all comes out binary anyway in the end. That's really what I'm arguing is that there's the initial layer of Darwinian stuff, the random mutation layer that it looks like what we teach people. There's another layer which we're not well familiar with.

And it results in a much more powerful capacity to adapt than we can explain with that first mechanism, which is why guys like Tucker think there's just something. These Darwinists, they keep telling me that the shrew becomes a bat. And then they go on this rant about the random mutations and the triplet codons and the mutations that actually turn out to be good.

And it results in a much more powerful capacity to adapt than we can explain with that first mechanism, which is why guys like Tucker think there's just something. These Darwinists, they keep telling me that the shrew becomes a bat. And then they go on this rant about the random mutations and the triplet codons and the mutations that actually turn out to be good.

And it results in a much more powerful capacity to adapt than we can explain with that first mechanism, which is why guys like Tucker think there's just something. These Darwinists, they keep telling me that the shrew becomes a bat. And then they go on this rant about the random mutations and the triplet codons and the mutations that actually turn out to be good.